DOCSLIB.ORG

W3C Rule Interchange Format

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
W3C Rule Interchange Format W3C rule interchange format Rule interchange Rules <RIF doc> Rules serialize de-serial. Rules Data model Rule (OWL, RDF-S, Rule system 1 XML-S, XMI, …) system 2 Data serialize <XML doc> de-serial. Data Application A data Application B Rules interchange Is good for compliance Policy compliant Compliance Policy setting organisation organisation organisation (regulated) (regulator) •Specifies Implements operational rules specifies interpretation of (PSM level) rules rules (PIM level) (CIM level) •Merges rules from relevant sources Implements Implemrules ents Impruleslements Implemrules ents rules Negotiating eCommerce Transactions Through Disclosure of Buyer and Seller Policies and Preferences • In order to grant access a buyer must provide valid credit card information together with delivery information (address, postal code, city, and country) Forall ?buyer Forall ?card ?address such that (?buyer[ex:creditCard->?card ex:deliveryAddress->?address]) if ex:validAddress(?address) and ex:validCreditCard(?card) then Execute(ex:grantAccess(?buyer)) ex:validAddress(?address) :- Exists ?x ?y ?z … And(?address[ex:zip->?x ex:city->?y ex:country->?z …] ex:isValidZip(?x ?y ?z) …) • Disclose Alice's credit card information only to online shops belonging to the Better Business Bureau • For anonymity reasons, never provide both her birth date and postal code. Interchanging Rule Extensions to OWL • “A rule is used to express the dependency between the ontology properties isMAEConnectedTo and isMAEBoundedBy, in particular (a simplified form of) the knowledge that two Material Anatomical Entities having a shared boundary are connected” Forall ?x ?y ?z (?x[isMAEConnectedTo->?y :- And(?x[isMAEBoundedBy->?z] ?y[isMAEBoundedBy->?z])) Publishing Rules for Interlinked Metadata • Every science fiction movie is a movie ?Movie#ex:Movie :- ?Movie#ex:ScienceFictionMovie • Every movie produced before 1930 is black and white ?Movie#ex:BlackWhiteMovie :- ?Movie#ex:Movie[ex:date -> ?Date], ?Date < "1930"^^xs:dateTime • All movies listed at http://altmd.example.org but not listed at http://imd.example.org are independent movies ?Movie#ex:IndependentMovie :- listed(?Movie#ex:Movie,http://altmd.example.org) not(listed(?Movie#ex:Movie,<http://imd.example.org>)) • All movies with budgets below 5 million USD are low-budget movies. ?Movie#ex:LowBudgetMovie :- ?Movie#ex:Movie [date -> ?Date, budget -> ?Budget] ?Budget < 5000000^^xs:long • All of these can be expressed with OWL, but not all of them belongs in an ontology Publishing Rules for Interlinked Metadata • FOAF user Charlie might choose to complement his normal FOAF profile with his preferences about which of his phone numbers should be used depending on his iCalendar schedule: – If Charlie is currently in a meeting according to http://charlie.example.org/calender.ical and the importance is high then call his cell number – If Charlie is currently attending a public talk according to http://charlie.example.org/calender.ical then leave him a voicemail message – If Charlie currently has no appointments according to http://charlie.example.org/calender.ical then call his office number Access control policies • PRIME <subject> with [<subject_expression>] can <actions> on <object> with [<object_expression>] for <purposes> if [<conditions>] • RIF-BLD Forall ?subject ?object prime:allowed(prime:action ?object prime:purpose) :- And(subject_expression object_expression conditions) • RIF-PRD Forall ?subject such that (subject_expression) Forall ?object such that (object_expression) If conditions then Execute(prime:action(?object prime:purpose)) What is the Rule Interchange Format? • Format for interchanging rules, so they can be used across diverse systems – allowing rules written for one application to be published, shared, and re-used in other applications and other rule engines. – In a semantic preserving way (between languages with compatible semantics) – Encouraging interoperability – XML syntax – Compatible with relevant standards (PRR, RDF, OWL, …) • A rule is (just another) data item – RIF provides a standard means to feed rules into an application (at run time) – Semantics to prescribe (intended) application’s behaviour RIF Background: standards • The early days of rule interchange – 1998: KIF – Knowledge Interchange Format – 2000: RuleML – 2001: SRML – Simple Rule Markup Language (Colleen and Changhai) – … • 2001-2004: JSR 94 – Java rule engine API – Prescribes a set of fundamental rule engine operations (i.e. loading rulesets, parsing rules, adding objects to an engine, firing rules, and getting resultant objects from the engine) – Engine semantics are not defined, so the API and specification are very high level (JDBC API ... without SQL) – No underlying rule language, hence no API to introspect rules, create rulesets, provide pluggable parsers etc. • 2003-2008: OMG PRR – Production Rule Representation – “A metamodel for a language that can be used with UML models for explicitly representing production rules as visible, separate and primary model elements in UML models” • A MOF/UML meta-model and an UML profile • Addresses the PIM level of MDA – Engine semantics are defined (forward chaining + sequential) – No underlying rule language: PRR Core + non-normative PRR OCL • April 2005: W3C workshop on rule languages for interoperability • November 2005: W3C Rule Interchange Format working group chartered • OMG SBVR, ISO Common Logic, … RIF Background: semantic Web • Semantic web approach – interoperability requires a formal semantics • The OWL WG approach – Start with something (DAML+OIL) • Literally hundreds of rule system implementations – ISO-Prolog, CLIPS, OPS… – http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/List_of_Rule_Systems – Already several “SW” rule languages • SWRL, RuleML, WRL, SWSL, KAON2, TRIPLE, JenaRules… – Everyone wants “their” system/technique/theory to be the SW rule standard Wherefore the RIFt(s)? • OWL DL < OWL < FOL – Original idea to add full first-order at the logic level – Semantic web very “open world” • Most back-end DBs support closed queries • Many rule systems have non-FO features – CWA/NAF – Procedural Attachment – Rule ordering – Non-monotonicity … can’t be layered on OWL • Not a strict SW layering already – OWL restricted dialects (DL) not layered on (all of) RDF/S semantics – RDF & RDFS not layered at all RIF Background: Business rules • “Business Rule systems” Vendors – $1B/year existing market – 1,000’s end users – 1,000,000’s rules in use – ILOG, Fair Isaac, Haley, … • Database vendors – Oracle, IBM • OMG PRR effort – Simple production rules – Event-condition-action – Vendors understand the value of standardization (see also JSR 94) – Interchange already a priority – …a common semantics? W3C RIF working group • W3C working group – Chartered Nov. 05 (for 2 years) • Phase 1: extensible XML rule interchange format, Horn expressiveness, semantic Web compatibility – Kick-off Dec. 05 • March 06: FPWD UCR • March 07: FPWD Core • Oct. 07: FPWD BLD – Extended Nov. 07 (for 6 months) • BLD to Last Call – Extended May 08 (for 1 year) • BLD, SWC to REC • FLD, DTB, PRD, extensibility • 74 participants from 35 organisations – IBM, HP, Oracle, ILOG, JBoss, Fair Isaac, Corticon, Tibco, MITRE… – NIST, OMG (esp. SBVR and PRR), RuleML… – Research organisations, universities… – And 4 invited experts – Chairs: Chris Welty (IBM), Christian de Sainte Marie (ILOG) • Working in the public eye – http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/RIF_Working_Group – Under the W3C patent policy W3C RIF: Design issues • Very large number of rule users/use cases and types to satisfy!!! – Descriptive {OMG MDA level = CIM} VS executable rules {OMG MDA level = PIM & PSM} – Logical (side-effect free) VS active (side-effect full) rules – Data-oriented (SQL triggers, PR, …) VS proof-oriented (FOL…) • All kinds of different data sources (DB, WM, OO, OWL…) – Semantic Web VS non-SW usage • Simplicity VS coverage • Extensibility VS compliance VS interoperability • Executable (AST) VS human-readable syntax • … Superset approach RLi RL2 RL1 RLn RLj superRIF Super-set approach • Define a super-language so expressive that any language can be translated to/from it – The CL and IKL approach @deprecated: infeasible for this group, as major differences appeared irreconcilable (e.g. non- mon vs. mon) A common core… RL2 RLi RIF Core RLj RL1 RLn …and standard dialects RL2 RLi RIF dialect RIF dialect Core RIF dialect Core RIF dialect Core RLj RL1 RLn Core + standard dialects • Define a core language that accounts for the intersection of all rule language capabilities – E.g. Horn, datalog, … @postponed: The production rule, logic programming, and FO core is not clear Separate families + Core IRL RIF PRD RIF BLD RLj JBoss RLn Separate families + Core IRL RIF PRD Core RIF BLD RLj JBoss RLn Separate families + Core • Define a logic-based core and a separate production-rule core • If there is an intersection, define the common core (which may possibly be just a syntax) @version 0.1: BLD LC (July 08) @version 0.0.1: PRD FPWD (July 08) Approach 3a • Define a framework in the form of a menu of syntactic and semantic features that can be combined into dialects – @version 0.0.9: FLD Design principles • Translation paradigm – No intrusion in covered rule languages and rule sets • Same semantics ⇔ same syntax – Share constructs accross dialects wherever they agree on the semantics – Different constructs where semantics do not agree • Fully striped XML (type-tagged, object-oriented, …) – alternating Class and role tags – Metadata can be attached to any class
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation
    Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh, and Erik Mannens Ghent University - imec - IDLab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its in- gredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines con- suming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base them- selves on a combination of dierent formalisms, eg Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to sup- port the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates dened in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough. Keywords: N3, RDF Validation, Rule-Based Reasoning 1 Introduction The amount of publicly available Linked Open Data (LOD) sets is constantly growing1, however, the diversity of the data employed in applications is mostly very limited: only a handful of RDF data is used frequently [27]. One of the reasons for this is that the datasets' quality and consistency varies signicantly, ranging from expensively curated to relatively low quality data [33], and thus need to be validated carefully before use.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Unifying Rules and Policies for Semantic Web Services
    Towards Unifying Rules and Policies for Semantic Web Services Nima Kaviani 1, Dragan Gaševi ć1, Marek Hatala 1, David Clement 2, Gerd Wagner 3 1Simon Fraser University Surrey, Canada 2Visiphor Corporation, Canada 3Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Germany {nkaviani, dgasevic, mhatala}@sfu.ca, [email protected], [email protected] Abstract However, the current proposed standards for describing Semantic Web services (i.e. OWL-S [14], Simplifying the discovery of web services on one hand WSDL-S [1], Web Service Modeling Ontology [7], and protecting them from misuse on the other hand has and Semantic Web Service Language – SWSL [2]) initiated several lines of research in the area of policy- demonstrate that it is important to use a rule language aware semantic web services. However, the diversity of in addition to ontologies. This allows run-time approaches, ontologies and languages chosen for discovery, composition, and orchestration of Semantic defining Semantic Web services and policies has made Web services by defining preconditions or post- the research area cluttered. It is now ambiguous how conditions for all Web service messages exchanged different registries and agents with different policy [13]. For example, OWL-S recommends using OWL languages and Semantic Web service ontologies would ontologies together with different types of rule share their information. In this paper we try to solve languages (SWRL, KIF, or DRS), WSMO uses F- the problem of exchanging information between the Logic, while WSDL-S is fully agnostic about the use of registries by defining an interchange framework to a vocabulary (e.g., UML, ODM, OWL) or rule transform business rules and concepts from one language (e.g., OCL, SWRL, RuleML).
    [Show full text]
  • INPUT CONTRIBUTION Group Name:* MAS WG Title:* Semantic Web Best Practices
    Semantic Web best practices INPUT CONTRIBUTION Group Name:* MAS WG Title:* Semantic Web best practices. Semantic Web Guidelines for domain knowledge interoperability to build the Semantic Web of Things Source:* Eurecom, Amelie Gyrard, Christian Bonnet Contact: Amelie Gyrard, [email protected], Christian Bonnet, [email protected] Date:* 2014-04-07 Abstract:* This contribution proposes to describe the semantic web best practices, semantic web tools, and existing domain ontologies for uses cases (smart home and health). Agenda Item:* Tbd Work item(s): MAS Document(s) Study of Existing Abstraction & Semantic Capability Enablement Impacted* Technologies for consideration by oneM2M. Intended purpose of Decision document:* Discussion Information Other <specify> Decision requested or This is an informative paper proposed by the French Eurecom institute as a recommendation:* guideline to MAS contributors on Semantic web best practices, as it was suggested during MAS#9.3 call. Amélie Gyrard is a new member in oneM2M (via ETSI PT1). oneM2M IPR STATEMENT Participation in, or attendance at, any activity of oneM2M, constitutes acceptance of and agreement to be bound by all provisions of IPR policy of the admitting Partner Type 1 and permission that all communications and statements, oral or written, or other information disclosed or presented, and any translation or derivative thereof, may without compensation, and to the extent such participant or attendee may legally and freely grant such copyright rights, be distributed, published, and posted on oneM2M’s web site, in whole or in part, on a non- exclusive basis by oneM2M or oneM2M Partners Type 1 or their licensees or assignees, or as oneM2M SC directs.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh, and Erik Mannens Ghent University - imec - IDLab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its in- gredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines con- suming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base them- selves on a combination of dierent formalisms, eg Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to sup- port the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates dened in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough. Keywords: N3, RDF Validation, Rule-Based Reasoning 1 Introduction The amount of publicly available Linked Open Data (LOD) sets is constantly growing1, however, the diversity of the data employed in applications is mostly very limited: only a handful of RDF data is used frequently [27].
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Interchange Format: the Framework
    Rule Interchange Format: The Framework Michael Kifer State University of New York at Stony Brook 1 Outline What is Rule Interchange Format (RIF)? RIF Framework Basic Logic Dialect (BLD) 2 What is RIF? A collection of dialects Rule system 1 (rigorously defined rule languages) semantics preserving Intended to facilitate rule mapping sharing and exchange RIF dialect X Dialect consistency Sharing of RIF machinery: semantics preserving XML syntax mapping Presentation syntax Semantics Rule system 2 3 Why Rule Exchange ? (and not The One True Rule Language ) Many different paradigms for rule languages Pure first-order Logic programming/deductive databases Production rules Reactive rules Many different features, syntaxes Different commercial interests Many egos, different preferences, ... 4 Why RIF Dialects ? (and not just one dialect ) Again: many paradigms for rule languages First-order rules Logic programming/deductive databases Reactive rules Production rules Many different semantics Classical first-order Stable-model semantics for negation Well-founded semantics for negation ... ... ... A carefully chosen set of interrelated dialects can serve the purpose of sharing and exchanging rules over the Web 5 Current State of RIF Dialects Need your feedback! Advanced LP . Advanced LP dialect 1 dialect N RIF-PRD (Production Rules Dialect) Basic LP dialect RIF-BLD (Basic Logic Dialect) - ready to go - under development - future plans RIF-Core 6 Why Is RIF Important? Best chance yet to bring rule languages into mainstream Can make
    [Show full text]
  • XBRL and the Semantic
    How can we exploit XBRL and Semantic Web technologies to realize the opportunities? Track 3: Case Studies in XBRL Solutions 19th XBRL International Conference, Paris, 23rd June 2009 Dave Raggett <[email protected]> W3C Fellow – Financial data & Semantic Web Member – XBRL INT Technical Standards Board With some slides from Diane Mueller, JustSystems 1 Outline XBRL: adding semantics to business reports World Wide Adoption of XBRL Users and use cases for XBRL Realizing the potential Feeding the Semantic Web ◦ XBRL, XLink, RDF, Turtle, SPARQL, OWL ◦ Web APIs, Smart Searches, Web Scale Queries ◦ Findings June 2009 2 So What is XBRL? eXtensible Business Reporting Language ◦ a freely available electronic language for financial reporting. ◦ based on XML, XML Schema and XLink ◦ based on accepted financial reporting standards and practices to transport financial reports across all software, platforms and technologies Business reporting includes, but is not limited to: ◦ financial statements, ◦ financial and non-financial information ◦ general ledger transactions ◦ regulatory filings such as annual and quarterly financial statements. “XBRL allows software vendors, programmers and end users who adopt it as a specification to enhance the creation, exchange, and comparison of business reporting information” from xbrl.org June 2009 3 Not just a number XBRL binds each reported fact to a concept in a reporting taxonomy e.g. US GAAP, IFRS ◦ Each concept can be bound to a description and its definition in the accounting literature Hierarchy of Terse label, EN Currency, amount Reporting period concepts Impairment of goodwill: $M21 3 months to 2009-04-30 Description Impairment of goodwill: Loss recognized during the period that results from the write-down of goodwill after comparing the implied fair value of reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Years of Semantic Web: an Incomplete Survey
    Ku¨nstl Intell (2016) 30:117–130 DOI 10.1007/s13218-016-0424-1 TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION 15 Years of Semantic Web: An Incomplete Survey 1 2 Birte Glimm • Heiner Stuckenschmidt Received: 7 November 2015 / Accepted: 5 January 2016 / Published online: 23 January 2016 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 Abstract It has been 15 years since the first publications today’s Web: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for proposed the use of ontologies as a basis for defining assigning unique identifiers to resources, the HyperText information semantics on the Web starting what today is Markup Language (HTML) for specifying the formatting known as the Semantic Web Research Community. This of Web pages, and the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) work undoubtedly had a significant influence on AI as a that allows for the retrieval of linked resources from across field and in particular the knowledge representation and the Web. Typically, the markup of standard Web pages Reasoning Community that quickly identified new chal- describes only the formatting and, hence, Web pages and lenges and opportunities in using Description Logics in a the navigation between them using hyperlinks is targeted practical setting. In this survey article, we will try to give towards human users (cf. Fig. 1). an overview of the developments the field has gone through In 2001, Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora in these 15 years. We will look at three different aspects: Lassila describe their vision for a Semantic Web [5]: the evolution of Semantic Web Language Standards, the The Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an evolution of central topics in the Semantic Web Commu- extension of the current one, in which information is nity and the evolution of the research methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Sensor Observation Service
    Wright State University CORE Scholar The Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge- Kno.e.sis Publications Enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) 5-2009 SemSOS: Semantic Sensor Observation Service Cory Andrew Henson Wright State University - Main Campus Josh Pschorr Wright State University - Main Campus Amit P. Sheth Wright State University - Main Campus, [email protected] Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan Wright State University - Main Campus, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis Part of the Bioinformatics Commons, Communication Technology and New Media Commons, Databases and Information Systems Commons, OS and Networks Commons, and the Science and Technology Studies Commons Repository Citation Henson, C. A., Pschorr, J., Sheth, A. P., & Thirunarayan, K. (2009). SemSOS: Semantic Sensor Observation Service. 2009 International Symposium on Collaborative Technologies and Systems: May 18-22, 2009, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 44-53. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis/333 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Ohio Center of Excellence in Knowledge-Enabled Computing (Kno.e.sis) at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kno.e.sis Publications by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 SemSOS: Semantic Sensor Observation Service Cory A. Henson, Josh K. Pschorr, Amit P. Sheth, and Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan Kno.e.sis Center, Department of Computer Science and Engineering Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] enabled by semantic modeling and what advantages this Abstract provides to standard SOS.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Web: a Review of the Field Pascal Hitzler [email protected] Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas, USA
    Semantic Web: A Review Of The Field Pascal Hitzler [email protected] Kansas State University Manhattan, Kansas, USA ABSTRACT which would probably produce a rather different narrative of the We review two decades of Semantic Web research and applica- history and the current state of the art of the field. I therefore do tions, discuss relationships to some other disciplines, and current not strive to achieve the impossible task of presenting something challenges in the field. close to a consensus – such a thing seems still elusive. However I do point out here, and sometimes within the narrative, that there CCS CONCEPTS are a good number of alternative perspectives. The review is also necessarily very selective, because Semantic • Information systems → Graph-based database models; In- Web is a rich field of diverse research and applications, borrowing formation integration; Semantic web description languages; from many disciplines within or adjacent to computer science, Ontologies; • Computing methodologies → Description log- and a brief review like this one cannot possibly be exhaustive or ics; Ontology engineering. give due credit to all important individual contributions. I do hope KEYWORDS that I have captured what many would consider key areas of the Semantic Web field. For the reader interested in obtaining amore Semantic Web, ontology, knowledge graph, linked data detailed overview, I recommend perusing the major publication ACM Reference Format: outlets in the field: The Semantic Web journal,1 the Journal of Pascal Hitzler. 2020. Semantic Web: A Review Of The Field. In Proceedings Web Semantics,2 and the proceedings of the annual International of . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages.
    [Show full text]
  • RIF in RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010
    RIF In RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010 RIF In RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-in-rdf-20100622/ Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-in-rdf/ Editors: Sandro Hawke, W3C/MIT This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PDF version. Copyright © 2010 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract This document specifies a reversible mapping (or transformation) from Rule Interchange Format (RIF) XML documents to Resource Description Framework (RDF) graphs. This mapping allows the contents of RIF documents to be interoperably stored and processed as RDF triples, using existing serializations and tools for RDF. When used with the standard mapping from RDF triples to RIF frames, this also provides a "reflection" or "introspection" mechanism, an interoperable way for RIF rules to operate on RIF documents. Status of this Document May Be Superseded This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/ TR/. Page 1 of 17 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-in-rdf-20100622/ RIF In RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010 Set of Documents This document is being published as one of a set of 11 documents: 1. RIF Overview 2. RIF Core Dialect 3. RIF Basic Logic Dialect 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology Languages – a Review
    International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol.2, No.6, December, 2010 1793-8201 Ontology Languages – A Review V. Maniraj, Dr.R. Sivakumar 1) Logical Languages Abstract—Ontologies have been becoming a hot research • First order predicate logic topic for the application in artificial intelligence, semantic web, Software Engineering, Library Science and information • Rule based logic Architecture. Ontology is a formal representation of set of concepts within a domain and relationships between those • concepts. It is used to reason about the properties of that Description logic domain and may be used to define the domain. An ontology language is a formal language used to encode the ontologies. A 2) Frame based Languages number of research languages have been designed and released • Similar to relational databases during the past few years by the research community. They are both proprietary and standard based. In this paper a study has 3) Graph based Languages been reported on the different features and issues of these • languages. This paper also addresses the challenges for Semantic network research community in the further development of ontology languages. • Analogy with the web is rationale for the semantic web I. INTRODUCTION Ontology engineering (or ontology building) is a subfield II. BACKGROUND of knowledge engineering that studies the methods and CycL1 in computer science and artificial intelligence is an methodologies for building ontologies. It studies the ontology language used by Doug Lenat’s Cye artificial ontology development process, the ontology life cycle, the intelligence project. Ramanathan V. Guna was instrumental methods and methodologies for building ontologies, and the in the design of the language.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Driven Architecture and Classification of Business Rules
    Proceedings of the Federated Conference on ISBN 978-83-60810-51-4 Computer Science and Information Systems pp. 949–952 Model Driven Architecture and classification of business rules modelling languages Bartłomiej Gaweł Iwona Skalna AGH University of Science and Technology AGH University of Science and Technology in Krakow in Krakow ul.Gramatyka 10, 30-067 Krakow, Poland ul.Gramatyka 10, 30-067 Krakow, Poland Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract—An organisation’s activity under dynamic changes of II. BUSINESS RULES AND SEMANTICS WEB business processes requires continuous improvement of business practices. This implies the necessity of refining decision making The definition of a business rule, coming from GUIDE process. Business rules [6], [8] enable experts to transfer enter- [11], states that a business rule is "a statement that defines or prise strategy onto the operational level using simple sentences constraints some aspect of the business. It is intended to assert which, in turn, can automate reactions to subsequent events both business structure or to control or influence the behaviour of inside and outside the organisation. The main advantage of the the business." In [10], Ross describes several basic principles business rules is their simplicity and flexibility so they can be easily utilised by different organisations for different purposes. of business rules approach. He believes that a language has In order to represent knowledge in a pseudo-natural language the biggest impact on business rules expressiveness. Therefore, understandable to information systems (business rules engines) in the remaining part of this study business rules description notation and description standards are required.
    [Show full text]